• Jens B Johansen, Peter T Mortensen, Regitze Videbæk, Sam Riahi, Mogens Møller, Jens Haarbo, and Susanne S Pedersen.
• Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Brendstrupgaardsvej 100, Aarhus N, Skejby, Denmark. brock@dadlnet.dk
• Europace. 2011 May 1;13(5):663-7.

AimsThe aim of this study was to examine health-care professionals attitudes towards implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy and issues discussed with patients.Methods And ResultsSurvey of 209 health-care professionals providing specialized treatment and care of ICD patients at the five implanting centres in Denmark. Questions pertained to gender, age, years of experience within the field, knowledge of the ongoing critical debate on ICD therapy, and personal experience with ICD treatment, and/or sudden cardiac arrest within family and/or friends. Of all participants, 185 (88.5%) completed the survey. Physicians spent less time informing patients about ICD treatment prior to implantation (mean min = 17.7 ± 11.2 vs. 28.6 ± 19.4; P < 0.001). They were more likely to discuss clinical issues but less likely to discuss psychosocial issues with patients compared with non-physicians. Physicians were less likely to believe that their personal attitude towards ICD treatment has no influence on how they deal professionally with patients (27.8 vs. 43.6%; P = 0.04). Physicians and non-physicians were equally positive towards ICD therapy as primary prophylaxis in ischaemic cardiomyopathy (87.6 vs. 82.1%; P = 0.40) but not in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (57.3 vs. 83.9%; P < 0.001). Physicians were more positive towards ICD therapy as secondary prophylaxis (98.9 vs. 84.2%; P = 0.001) compared with non-physicians.ConclusionsPhysicians focus on clinical rather than psychosocial issues when discussing ICD treatment with candidate patients. At the same time, physicians are more aware that their attitude towards ICD treatment may influence how they deal professionally with patients compared with non-physicians.

20 keywords...

hide…